Radha Mohan Prasad, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20th August, 1999 passed in M.V. Claim Case No. 9 of 1999 by 6th Additional District Judge-cum-Additional M.V. Claim Tribunal, Aurangabad.
2. The case of the applicant in the said claim case is that on 22-5-1998 while deceased Ramesh Kumar Singh along with his father got down from Arbind Baba Baidyu Nath Travels at G.T. Road By-pass, Aurangabad in order to catch another bus to complete his journey to his home at about 3.30 p.m., Chauhan Bus bearing Registration No. BR-26-H-6255 owned by one Smt. Deobashi Devi, wife of Jugal Kishore Singh of Aurangabad town and driven by her driver most rashly and negligently dashed said Ramesh Kumar Singh who died on the spot.
3. It is not in dispute that the bus in question was insured with the appellant-Company. The Tribunal on detailed consideration has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,57,600/-with interest at the rate of 10% per annum since the date of filing of the claim till the payment of the amount in favour of the claimant, who is the widow of the deceased.
4. It appears that this appeal which has been filed on 4-5-2000 after over eight months is barred by limitation and for condonation of delay I. A. No. 4739 of 2000 has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Company.
5. In the limitation petition, it is started that the limitation expired on 21-12-1999. The only explanation for the delay in filing of the appeal is that the learned Court below in paragraphs 4 and 17 of the judgment and in award committed error and instead of mentioning 'M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd.', mentioned 'M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd.', for correction of which the appellant filed a petition under Section 152, C.P.C. and the learned Court below, vide order dated 16-2-2000, instead of introducing correction in the said paragraphs 4 and 17 and award ordered correction in paragraph 4 only and allowed error to continue in operative part of the judgment in paragraph 17 and as a result, the error in award still continues. It is stated that the appellant instead of further waiting for fresh correction in paragraph 17 and award filed this appeal within 90 days of the order of correction dated 16-2-2000 and on this ground has sought for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.
6. However, it is not in dispute that the appellant-Company was opposite party No. 2 and they contested the claim case. In the original judgment also, their name finds place at the very top of the judgment. However, it is not stated as to when the aforementioned petition under Section 152, C.P.C. for correction of the judgment and award was filed.
7. Under such circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to accept the aforementioned plea of the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has, however, submitted that while considering the question regarding condonation of delay, the Court should apply the law in a meaningful manner to serve the ends of justice and that the Court, while going to the merit of a case, should adopt liberal approach. In support of this, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State
of Bihar v. Devendra Kumar Mishra 2001 (1) BBCJ 416 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shyama Devi v. Jasomati Devi 1996(2) PLJR 167.
9. This Court fails to appreciate as to how the said decisions are of any help-to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the deceased died in the accident on the spot on 22-5-1998 and the widow has been kept deprived of the claim for now over three and a half years.
10. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in IA No. 4739 of 2000 and the same is, accordingly, rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as being barred by limitation.